reprinted from sports science & coaching

Does the Attentional Focus Adopted bySwimmers Affect Their Performance?by

Isabelle Stoate and Gabriele Wulf

Reprinted from

International Journal of

Sports Science & CoachingVolume 6 · Number 1 · 2011

Does the Attentional Focus Adopted bySwimmers Affect Their Performance?

Isabelle Stoate and Gabriele WulfDepartment of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences

University of Nevada, Las Vegas4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3034, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The study examined effects of attentional focus on swim speed in expert

swimmers. In previous studies, an external focus directed at the movement

effect has been shown to enhance automaticity, relative to an internal

focus directed at the body movements (or no particular focus). The

swimmers in the present study were given focus instructions related to the

arm stroke in crawl swimming. All participants swam 3 lengths of a 25-yard

pool, once under each of 3 conditions. In the external focus condition, they

were instructed to focus on “pushing the water back”, in the internal focus

conditions they were asked to focus on “pulling your hands back”, and in

the control condition they were not given instructions. Swim times were

similar in the control and external focus conditions, but they were

significantly slower with an internal focus. Furthermore, questionnaire

results revealed that most swimmers focused on the overall outcome (e.g.,

speed) in the control condition, whereas others indicated that they focused

on specific body parts. Post-hoc analyses demonstrated that those in the

latter group had slower swim times in the control condition than those with

a focus on the outcome. Overall, the results provide converging evidence

that a body-related, internal focus hampers performance. Moreover, when

movements are already controlled automatically at a high skill level (and the

focus is on the outcome), external focus instructions may be superfluous.

Key words: Expertise, Feedback, Focus of Attention, Swimming

INTRODUCTIONAs many studies have shown over the past few years, an individual’s focus of attention canaffect the performance and learning of motor skills [1]. Specifically, instructions or feedbackinducing an external focus on the intended movement effect typically result in more effectiveand efficient movements than those inducing an internal focus on the movementsthemselves, or no particular focus (control conditions). For example, in balance tasks,instructions directing attention to movements of the support surface, as opposed to the

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 6 · Number 1 · 2011 99

Reviewer: Jamie Poolton (University of Hong Kong, HKSAR)

performer’s feet or no instructions, have been found to enhance balance [2]. The motor tasksfor which these effects have been demonstrated ranged from various types of balance tasks[3, 4] to sport skills, including basketball [5, 6], volleyball [7], soccer [7], dart throwing [8,9], and golf [10]. The generalizability of the external focus advantage is further demonstratedby the fact that the effects have not only been shown for young, healthy adults, but also forchildren [11], as well as older adults with Parkinson’s disease or after a stroke [12, 13].

An external focus promotes automaticity in movement control, whereas a focus on themovements themselves tends to constrain the motor system due to the performer’s attemptsto exert conscious control over his or her movements (constrained action hypothesis [14]).Support for this view comes from findings showing reduced probe reaction times, orattentional demands [14], and higher-frequency, reflex-based (i.e., automatic) movementadjustments [14, 15] when performers adopt an external compared to an internal focus. Thus,an external focus appears to speed the learning process, resulting in higher performancelevels and automatic control sooner [1]. In line with this view, recent findings indicate thatmovement efficiency is enhanced by an external focus as well [16].

Most studies examining attentional focus effects have used novices as participants; that is,participants who were asked to learn or perform novel tasks under different focus conditions[1]. Only very few studies examined the effects of different attentional foci in expertperformers. In one study, Perkins-Ceccato et al. [17] used highly skilled golfers (meanhandicap: 4) as participants. They found that the golfers performed more effectively withexternal focus instructions (i.e., focus on hitting the ball as close to target as possible),compared with internal focus instructions (i.e., focus on movement form). Bell and Hardy[10] also showed that expert golfers (average handicap: 5.5) performed more effectivelywhen instructions induced an external focus rather than internal focus (i.e., wrist hinge),especially if they promoted a relatively distal external focus (i.e., straight ball flight)compared with a more proximal focus (i.e., square clubface) (see also McNevin et al. [15]).

Perhaps an even more interesting question is whether expert performers, whosemovement execution is already automatic, would benefit from external focus instructionsrelative to a control condition that allowed them to perform under normal conditions (e.g.,with their preferred attentional focus, if any). In one study, golfers with an average handicapof 0 demonstrated greater shot accuracy when they were given external focus instructions(i.e., swing of the club), relative to both control (i.e., no instructions) and internal focusconditions (i.e., swing of their arms) [18]. Performances in the latter two conditions did notdiffer from each other. Thus, the induced external focus improved performance even inhighly-skilled golfers over and above normal conditions. In contrast, in a study with world-class acrobats a somewhat different pattern of results emerged [19]. In that study, balanceacrobats performed a balance task, namely, standing still on an inflated rubber disk. In thiscase, the control condition resulted in a higher frequency of postural adjustments – indicativeof greater automaticity [14, 15] – than both external focus (“focus on keeping the disk still”)and internal focus conditions (“focus on keeping your feet still”). That is, performance wasmost effective in the control condition.

Thus, the few studies that compared the effects of different attentional foci to controlconditions in experts yielded somewhat inconsistent results. However, those studies [18, 19]also varied in a number of ways, including the performers’ skill level (highly-skilled golfersversus top-level acrobats), task demands (complex versus relatively simple), and thecompatibility with the actual tasks performed by them in “real life” (similar versus easier).It is possible that some or all of these factors contributed to the different pattern of results.For example, if the performer’s capabilities far exceed the coordination demands of the task

100 Does the Attentional Focus Adopted by Swimmers Affect Their Performance?

(as in the study with balance acrobats by Wulf [19]), it is conceivable that any type ofinduced focus would direct attention to a lower-than-normal level of control and hamperperformance [20].

In the present study, we wanted to further explore the role of attentional focus in expertperformers. Specifically, our goal was to assess the influence of external (and internal) focusinstructions, relative to no instructions (control condition), in an activity that could beconsidered highly automated due to a large number of repetitions performed over manyyears, that was of moderate complexity, and that was identical to that performed byparticipants in training and competition. We chose highly-trained swimmers and asked themto swim under three different conditions: External focus (i.e., focusing attention on pushingthe water back), internal focus (i.e., pulling the hands back), and a control condition (nofocus instructions). We compared their swim times (25 yards) under those conditions. In aprevious study with intermediate swimmers using the same task and design [21], shortertimes resulted when participants adopted an external focus, compared with the two otherconditions, which did not differ. In the present study, we expected the expert swimmers toswim faster in the control and external focus conditions than in the internal focus condition.In addition, we hypothesized that the control and external focus conditions would yieldsimilar results.

Another purpose of the present study was to gain insight into what experts focus on, ifanything, under normal (control) conditions. A shortcoming of previous studies with expertswas that they did not include control conditions [10, 17] or, if control conditions wereincorporated, that no interviews or questionnaires were used to determine what participantsfocused on under those conditions [18, 19]. In the present study, we therefore usedquestionnaires to determine what performers focused on under no-instruction controlconditions. We also included manipulation checks for the external and internal focusconditions.

METHODPARTICIPANTSThirty trained swimmers (11 men, 19 women) with a mean age of 17.5 years (SD = 2.24)participated in the study. The swimmers were considered experts as they had been swimmingcompetitively for an average of 10.2 years (SD = 3.45), and trained an average of 8.5 timesper week (SD = 1.85) for competition. All swimmers were either part of a local swim team,which was ranked number 26 in the nation (out of 2,679 swimming clubs), or a universityswim team, whose men’s team was Mountain West Conference champions for the fifthstraight time, and whose women’s team took second place in 2009. Participants’ personalbests over 50 m and 100 m freestyle were 26.7 s (SD: 2.61) and 57.6 s (SD: 5.63),respectively. The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board.Participants over the age of 18 signed an informed consent form. Those under the age of 18signed an assent form, and their parents signed a consent form.

TASK AND PROCEDUREThe task required participants to swim 3 lengths of a 25-yard swimming pool, with 1-minutebreaks between lengths. All of the participants swam one length under each of three focusconditions (control, external, internal) as fast as possible using the front crawl stroke. In thecontrol condition, the swimmers were not given any focus instructions. In the externalcondition the swimmers were instructed to “focus on pushing the water back”, and in theinternal condition the swimmers were instructed to “focus on pulling your hands back”. All


participants started in the water and were hand-timed by two experimenters. The time wasrecorded from when the swimmers feet left the wall to when their hand touched the wall atthe other end. The time was recorded in seconds and tenths of seconds. The order of the focuscondition was counterbalanced (control-external-internal, external-internal-control, internal-control-external). After the completion of the three lengths, all swimmers filled out aquestionnaire related to their demographic information. In addition, the questionnairecontained manipulation checks for the external (“Were you able to focus on pushing thewater back?”) and internal focus conditions (“Were you able to focus on pulling your handsback?”), as well as a question about their focus in the control condition (“What did you focuson when you were not given instructions?”).

DEPENDENT VARIABLE AND DATA ANALYSISThe swim times recorded by both experimenters were highly correlated (r = .99, p < .001)and were therefore averaged. The average time taken to swim the length of the pool (25yards) served as the dependent variable. As all the participants performed under the threefocus conditions (control, external, and internal) in a counterbalanced order, order wasincluded as a factor in the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Thus, swim times were analyzedin a 3 (control-external-internal, external-internal-control, internal-control-external) x 3(focus: control, external, internal) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor.

RESULTSMANIPULATION CHECK AND FOCUS IN CONTROL CONDITIONOnly one participant indicated that she was not able to focus on pulling her hands back(nevertheless, her swim times in the three conditions were in line with the respective averageswim times). All other participants indicated that they were able to follow the external andinternal focus instructions (see Table 1). In the control condition, without focus instructions,most of the participants indicated that they focused on “speed”, “tempo”, “going fast”, or


Figure 1. Swim Times in the Control, External Focus, and Internal FocusConditionsError bars represent standard errors; * denotes significant differencesbetween conditions

“getting to the other side” – which one might consider external in nature, as the focus wason the overall outcome of their actions. However, several other participants reported thattheir focus was directed at a particular body part, such as head, arms, elbows, or hips, or thatthey focused on the kicking action – which could be considered internal foci (see Table 1).

SWIM TIMESParticipants swam faster in the control (13.23 s, SD = .779) and external focus condition(13.33 s, SD = .705) than in the internal focus condition (13.51 s, SD = .879) (see Figure 1).The main effect of attentional focus was significant, F (2, 54) = 5.73, p < .01, Eta2 = .18.Post-hoc tests, with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons, indicated that swimtimes in the control and external focus conditions did not differ significantly from each other(p > .05), but both were significantly faster than those in the internal focus condition (ps <.05). The main effect of order, F (2, 27) < 1, and the interaction of attentional focus and order,F (4, 54) = 1.25, p > .05, were not significant.


Table 1. Manipulation Check Results and Reported Focus in the ControlCondition

Participant Focus on hands? Focus on water? Focus in control condition?1 No Yes Keeping tempo up2 Yes Yes Going fast3 Yes Yes Nothing4 Yes Yes Pulling fast, fast arms, keep kicking5 Yes Yes Underwater6 Yes Yes Good technique7 Yes Yes Hip rotation8 Yes Yes How I usually do my stroke9 Yes Yes Long stroke10 Yes Yes Spinning my arms11 Yes Yes Getting to the other side12 Yes Yes Nothing13 Yes Yes Speed14 Yes Yes Swimming15 Yes Yes Going fast16 Yes Yes Tempo, keeping head down 17 Yes Yes Kicking and tempo18 Yes Yes Arm speed19 Yes Yes High elbow, catch up20 Yes Yes Catch at front of stroke; pull hands back21 Yes Yes Tempo22 Yes Yes Tempo and pulling lots of water23 Yes Yes Going as fast as possible/beating opponent24 Yes Yes Going fast/kicking hard25 Yes Yes Nothing26 Yes Yes Just going fast27 Yes Yes Kicking faster28 Yes Yes Nothing29 Yes Yes Swimming hard30 Yes Yes Tempo

DISCUSSIONStudies examining how the performance of experts varies as a function of their attentionalfocus are scarce. Extant studies have shown that, when expert performers focus on their bodymovement (i.e., internal focus), performance is usually degraded relative to normal or controlconditions [18, 19, 22, 23]. Furthermore, an external focus on the movements effect istypically more effective than an internal focus [17, 18], especially when the distance of theexternal focus is increased [10]. Yet, it has been less clear how external focus instructionsaffect expert performance compared to no instructions, or control conditions. While in onestudy instructions inducing an external focus enhanced movement accuracy relative to acontrol condition [18], in another study automaticity in the control of balance was greater ina control condition compared with an external focus condition [19]. Because of theseinconsistencies in the findings, we deemed it important to further examine the relativeeffectiveness of different attentional foci in expert performers.

The swimmers who participated in the present study had presumably performed severalmillion strokes over their lifetime (with an average of 10 years of competitive swimmingexperience, and training 8 times per week). Therefore, this activity could be consideredhighly automated. Perhaps not surprisingly, swim times were fastest under controlconditions. Yet, they did not differ significantly from those achieved in the external focuscondition, when the swimmers were instructed to focus on the water. In contrast, instructionsto focus on their hands in the internal focus condition resulted in swim times that weresignificantly longer than those in the two other conditions.

The manipulation check indicated that, almost without exception, participants did adhereto the instructed foci. Of course, as is the case with most manipulation checks, participants’responses were retrospective. Also, given the duration of a trial (i.e., about 13 s), it is possiblethat the attentional focus may not have been maintained over the entire length of the pool, ormay have shifted somewhat. (Self-talk instructions may be a means to ensure that a certainfocus is maintained over a longer period of time.) Despite these potential drawbacks, theobserved swim times were in line with our predictions.

The generation of forces, such as those required when swimming at maximum speed,requires an optimal timing and direction of the contributing forces – based on an efficientcoordination pattern between agonist and antagonist muscle groups, as well as recruitmentof muscles fibers within a muscle. An increase in movement efficiency is typically acquiredas a function of practice. Yet, as studies have demonstrated, an external focus also has thecapacity to facilitate efficiency. An external relative to an internal focus has been shown toresult in reduced muscular activity [8, 24, 25], while increasing force output at the same time[26]. In expert performers, instructions to focus externally may or may not enhancemovement effectiveness or efficiency compared to normal conditions. The expert swimmersin the present study did not swim faster when instructed to focus on the effects of theirmovements on the water than they did in the control condition. This finding is in line withthe idea that, if movements are already controlled automatically and efficiently, externalfocus instructions would provide no additional benefit [1, 19, 27].

In contrast, the adoption of a body-movement related, internal focus has consistently beenfound to be detrimental for skilled performers [18, 19, 22, 23]. It is assumed to result in amore conscious mode of control that tends to disrupt automatic control processes and hamperthe fluidity and efficiency of movements (e.g., “conscious processing hypothesis” [28];“constrained action hypothesis” [14]; “explicit monitoring” [29]). Even in novices, a focuson body movements has been found to have detrimental effects on movement effectivenessand efficiency (for a review, see Wulf [1]). This suggests that a focus on the self (“self-


invoking trigger”; [16]) generally – that is, independent of the individual’s skill level –degrades motor performance by causing a more widespread, inefficient, activation of themuscular system.

How exactly instructions directing attention to the movement effect influence experts’performance, relative to control conditions, may depend on a variety of factors, including thecomplexity of the task and the performer’s skill level. If a task requires the coordination ofnumerous degrees of freedom (e.g., a golf swing) and/or performance is still less-than-perfect, external focus instructions may lead to enhanced performance [18]. Yet, if the taskis relatively simple and/or performance is highly automated due to extensive practice (e.g.,standing still on a solid surface), inducing an external focus may not be beneficial (e.g.,present study; [27]), or can even be detrimental [19]. Whether external focus instructions areneutral or detrimental may also depend on the “level of control” [20, 30] they address. Withpractice, actions are presumably monitored at progressively higher levels of representation.In swimming, for example, a hierarchy of action goals may involve “winning a competition”,“swimming fast”, “pushing water back”, and “correct hand position” [20]. If the attentionalfocus corresponds to a level of control that is lower than optimal, performance will likelysuffer relative to normal conditions.

To determine what expert swimmers focus on under normal (or control) conditions wasanother goal of the present study. The questionnaire results indicated that, while someswimmers seemed to focus internally (e.g., hip rotation, high elbow, spinning my arms) –presumably as a result of feedback from the coach – most swimmers reported that theysimply focused on speed (e.g., tempo, going fast, getting to the other side) or nothing. Thus,the movements of most swimmers appeared to be monitored at a high level of control – onethat corresponded to the overall task goal. The goal of “swimming fast” presumably simplytriggered the actions necessary to achieve this goal. While participants’ normal focus mayhave been optimal for their skill level, the induced external focus – although it may havedirected their attention to a somewhat lower control level – was not detrimental. However,asking the swimmers to focus on their hands was harmful. It likely disrupted the finely tunedcontrol mechanisms that normally control their swimming motions. That is, micromanagingmovements clearly degraded performance.

Yet, because some swimmers reported more of an internal focus in the control condition– mentioning words such as arms, hips, stroke, or kicking (Participants 4, 7-10, 16-20, 24,27) – we wanted to examine how their swim times compared to those who reported focusingon the overall outcome (e.g., speed, tempo, going fast, swimming hard) or “nothing” (i.e., theremaining participants; see Table 1)1. Therefore, we performed a 2 (group) x 3 (condition:control, external, internal) ANOVA. The results revealed that those who adopted an internalfocus in the control condition actually had longer swim times (13.55 s) than those who didnot (13.02 s). The differences between groups were smaller in the external (13.44 vs. 13.25 s,respectively) and internal focus conditions (13.57 vs. 13.47 s, respectively). This pattern ofresults was confirmed by a significant interaction of group and condition, F (2, 56) = 3.83,p < .05, Eta2 = .12. Even though post-hoc tests were not able to identify the exact source ofthe interaction, the numerical group differences in the control condition are consistent withthe overall findings, and the notion that an internal focus disrupts automaticity and results inpoorer performance. These findings have important implications for implied settings. Whilestudies exploring instructions typically used by swim coaches may not yet exist, recentinterviews of nationally-ranked track and field athletes showed that 84.6% of coaches gave


1We thank Jamie Poolton for suggesting this analysis.

instructions related to body and limb movements [31]. As a consequence, the majority ofathletes (69.2%) indicated that they focused internally when competing. Assuming that mostswim coaches give instructions that tend to induce an internal focus as well, there may beconsiderable room for improvement in swimming performance.

CONCLUSIONThe present results, combined with those of Freudenheim et al. [21], are in line with the ideathat the optimal focus of attention changes with practice or expertise. Whereas intermediateswimmers in the study by Freudenheim et al. [21] (i.e., students in a university swimmingclass) benefited from the instructions to focus on pushing the water back, relative to noinstructions, this was not the case for the experts in the present study. Directing the attentionof novices and moderately-skilled swimmers externally – that is, to a higher level of controlthan that adopted by them spontaneously or as a consequence of instructions – is typicallybeneficial. Yet, for experts who have already learned to monitor their actions at a high level,instructions to focus externally may be superfluous. However, under pressure to do well,performers often revert to a lower level of control [23, 32]. Whether a deliberate or instructedexternal focus can reduce performers’ tendency to focus internally and to engage in self-regulatory activity [16], with detrimental effects on performance, is an interesting question.While a few studies have addressed this issue [10], this problem deserves more attention infuture research.

Clearly, instructions or feedback that direct swimmers’ attention internally do not resultin optimal performance – independent of whether their skill level is intermediate [21] or high(present study). In the present study, focusing on their hands increased the swimmers’ 25-yard times by an average of .18 s compared with an external focus on the water, and by .29 scompared with the control condition. While these differences may seem numerically small,it should be kept in mind that races are often won or lost by much smaller margins. In the2008 Olympics, for example, the second-placed swimmer (21.45 s) in the men’s 50 m racemissed out on a gold medal by .15 s. In the women’s 50 m race, the gold (24.06 s) and bronzemedalists (24.17 s) were separated by .11 s, and the silver medalist (24.07 s) missed out onthe win by only .01 s. Clearly, an athlete’s focus of attention is a variable that should not bediscounted in the preparation for optimal performance.

REFERENCES1. Wulf, G., Attention and Motor Skill Learning, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, 2007.

2. Wulf, G. and McNevin, N.H., Simply Distracting Learners is Not Enough: More Evidence for the LearningBenefits of an External Focus of Attention, European Journal of Sport Science, 2003, 3, 1-13.

3. Totsika, V. and Wulf, G., The Influence of External and Internal Foci of Attention on Transfer to NovelSituations and Skills, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2003, 74, 220-225.

4. Wulf, G., Höß, M. and Prinz, W., Instructions for Motor Learning: Differential Effects of Internal versusExternal Focus of Attention, Journal of Motor Behavior, 1998, 30, 169-179.

5. Al-Abood, S.A., Bennett, S.J., Hernandez, F.M., Ashford, D. and Davids, K., Effects of Verbal Instructionsand Image Size on Visual Search Strategies in Basketball Free Throw Shooting, Journal of Sports Sciences,2002, 20, 271-278.

6. Zachry, T., Wulf, G., Mercer, J. and Bezodis, N., Increased Movement Accuracy and Reduced EMG Activityas the Result of Adopting an External Focus of Attention, Brain Research Bulletin, 2005, 67, 304-309.

7. Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gärtner, M. and Schwarz, A., Enhancing the Learning of Sport Skills ThroughExternal-focus Feedback, Journal of Motor Behavior, 2002, 34, 171-182.


8. Lohse, K.R., Sherwood, D.E. and Healy, A.F., How Changing the Focus of Attention Affects Performance,Kinematics, and Electromyography in Dart Throwing, Human Movement Science, 2010, 29, 542-555.

9. Marchant, D., Clough, P. and Crawshaw, M., The Effects of Attentional Focusing Strategies on Novice DartThrowing Performance and their Task Experiences, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,2007, 5, 291-303.

10. Bell, J.J. and Hardy, J., Effects of Attentional Focus on Skilled Performance in Golf, Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 2009, 21, 163-177.

11. Thorn, J., Using Attentional Strategies for Balance Performance and Learning in Nine through 12 Year Olds,Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, 2006.

12. Fasoli, S.E., Trombly, C.A., Tickle-Degnen, L. and Verfaellie, M.H., Effect of Instructions on FunctionalReach in Persons with and without Cerebrovascular Accident, American Journal of Occupational Therapy,2002, 56, 380-390.

13. Wulf, G., Landers, M., Lewthwaite, R. and Töllner, T., External Focus Instructions Reduce PosturalInstability in Individuals with Parkinson Disease, Physical Therapy, 2009, 89, 162-168.

14. Wulf, G., McNevin, N.H. and Shea, C.H., The Automaticity of Complex Motor Skill Learning as a Functionof Attentional Focus, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2001, 54A, 1143-1154.

15. McNevin, N.H., Shea, C.H. and Wulf, G., Increasing the Distance of an External Focus of AttentionEnhances Learning, Psychological Research, 2003, 67, 22-29.

16. Wulf, G. and Lewthwaite, R., Effortless Motor Learning? An External Focus of Attention EnhancesMovement Effectiveness and Efficiency, In: Bruya, B., ed., Effortless Attention: A New Perspective inAttention and Action, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010, 75-101.

17. Perkins-Ceccato, N., Passmore, S.R. and Lee, T.D., Effects of Focus of Attention Depend on Golfers’ Skill,Journal of Sports Sciences, 2003, 21, 593-600.

18. Wulf, G. and Su, J., An External Focus of Attention Enhances Golf Shot Accuracy in Beginners and Experts,Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2007, 78, 384-389.

19. Wulf, G., Attentional Focus Effects in Balance Acrobats, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2008,79, 319-325.

20. Vallacher, R.R., Mental calibration: Forging a Working Relationship between Mind and Action, in: Wegner,D.M. and Pennebaker, J.W., ed., Handbook of Mental Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1993.

21. Freudenheim, A.M., Wulf, G., Madureira, F., Corrêa, U.C. and Corrêa, S.C.P., An External Focus of AttentionResults in Greater Swimming Speed, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2010, 5(4), 533-542.

22. Beilock, S.L., Carr, T.H., MacMahon, C. and Starkes, J.L., When Paying Attention BecomesCounterproductive: Impact of Divided versus Skill-focused Attention on Novice and ExperiencedPerformance of Sensorimotor Skills, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2002, 8, 6-16.

23. Gray, R., Attending to the Execution of a Complex Sensorimotor Skill: Expertise Differences, Choking, andSlumps, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2004, 10, 42-54.

24. Marchant, D. C., Greig, M. and Scott, C., Attentional Focusing Instructions Influence Force Production andMuscular Activity during Isokinetic Elbow Flexions, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2009,23, 2358–2366.

25. Vance, J., Wulf, G., Töllner, T., McNevin, N.H. and Mercer, J., EMG Activity as a Function of thePerformer’s Focus of Attention, Journal of Motor Behavior, 2004, 36, 450-459.

26. Wulf, G., Dufek, J.S., Lozano, L. and Pettigrew, C., Increased Jump Height and Reduced EMG Activity withan External Focus of Attention, Human Movement Science, 2010, 29, 440-448.

27. Wulf, G., Töllner, T. and Shea, C.H., Attentional Focus Effects as a Function of Task Difficulty, ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2007, 78, 257-264.

28. Masters, R.S.W. and Maxwell, J.P., The Theory of Reinvestment, International Review of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 2008, 1, 160-183.


29. Beilock, S.L. and Carr, T.H., On the Fragility of Skilled Performance: What Governs Choking UnderPressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2001, 130, 701-725.

30. Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M., What do People Think They’re Doing? Action Identification and HumanBehavior, Psychological Review, 1987, 94, 3-15.

31. Porter, J.M., Wu, W.F.W. and Partridge, J.A., Focus of Attention and Verbal Instructions: Strategies of EliteTrack and Field Coaches and Athletes, Sport Science Review, 2010, 19, 199-211.

32. Baumeister, R.F., Choking under Pressure: Self-Consciousness and Paradoxical Effects of Incentives onSkillful Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 46, 610-620.


reprinted from sports science & coaching

Documents